Guest guest Posted January 21, 2004 Report Share Posted January 21, 2004 Namaste, Thanks to Sadaji's urging, I posted this message on the dualistic (dvaitin) Vidavali list. I thought it was kind of funny and also related to our maya discussion, so I will take the liberty of posting it here. It is worth thinking about. Do not worry! I will not copy the entire discussion over here as it proceeds. Also, I will not stick around for long over there. This list is already plenty of work ... even just reading it! Message to Vidavali: Namaste, It is with considerable trepidation that I pay a brief visit here. I am familiar with some of Sri Jay's posts, and I have no illusions about winning any arguments here. What he says is very intelligent and well reasoned and even irrefutable, if we take certain assumptions for granted. My only point is that it is not necessary to take those assumptions for granted, namely, the existence of a world independent of consciousness. All of science can be reduced to observations, which are by definition within consciousness. It is an extraneous and unnecessary hypothesis to further postulate an external world. We only do so because different observers have similar observations when they are 'in the same place'. And to be 'in the same place' means no more than that different observers are having similar observations. May I be so optimistic as to hope that you can at least accept this as a reasonable and plausible theory, even it you can't quite believe in it? It is not sheer nonsense. It is self-consistent and also consistent with observations. It is also the simplest theory that is consistent with observations. Something in Western philosophy called 'Ockham's razor' says that we should accept the simplest theory consistent with observations. Is there a similar principle in Indian philosophy? Hari Om! Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2004 Report Share Posted January 21, 2004 --- Benjamin <orion777ben wrote: > It is also the simplest theory that is consistent with observations. > Something in Western philosophy called 'Ockham's razor' says that we > should accept the simplest theory consistent with observations. Is > there a similar principle in Indian philosophy? > > Hari Om! > Benjamin In Navyanaaya - this is a similar concept, may not be exact - The law of parsimony - or laaghavam - in a way accepting simplistic straightforward concept as more basic than more complicated relationships. Hari OM! Sadananda ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes./signingbonus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2004 Report Share Posted January 21, 2004 Namaste Benjaminji, In Indian philosophy, Ockham's razor is called the principle of parsimony. Regards, Chittaranjan advaitin, Benjamin <orion777ben> wrote: > > > Namaste, > > Thanks to Sadaji's urging, I posted this message on the dualistic > (dvaitin) Vidavali list. I thought it was kind of funny and also > related to our maya discussion, so I will take the liberty of posting > it here. It is worth thinking about. > > Do not worry! I will not copy the entire discussion over here as it > proceeds. Also, I will not stick around for long over there. This > list is already plenty of work ... even just reading it! > > > Message to Vidavali: > > Namaste, > > It is with considerable trepidation that I pay a brief visit here. I > am familiar with some of Sri Jay's posts, and I have no illusions > about winning any arguments here. What he says is very intelligent > and well reasoned and even irrefutable, if we take certain > assumptions for granted. > > My only point is that it is not necessary to take those assumptions > for granted, namely, the existence of a world independent of > consciousness. All of science can be reduced to observations, which > are by definition within consciousness. It is an extraneous and > unnecessary hypothesis to further postulate an external world. We > only do so because different observers have similar observations when > they are 'in the same place'. And to be 'in the same place' means no > more than that different observers are having similar observations. > > May I be so optimistic as to hope that you can at least accept this > as a reasonable and plausible theory, even it you can't quite believe > in it? It is not sheer nonsense. It is self-consistent and also > consistent with observations. > > It is also the simplest theory that is consistent with observations. > Something in Western philosophy called 'Ockham's razor' says that we > should accept the simplest theory consistent with observations. Is > there a similar principle in Indian philosophy? > > Hari Om! > Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2004 Report Share Posted January 21, 2004 advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda > > In Navyanaaya - this is a similar concept, may not be exact - The law of > parsimony - or laaghavam - in a way accepting simplistic straightforward > concept as more basic than more complicated relationships. Namaste, For a quick overview of Nyaya, and Advaitasiddhi, these articles are helpful: http://home.earthlink.net/~pushpasri/nyaya/ http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/series/as/AS_verse_01.htm (18 pages 01-18) Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.